Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: RBNW....new and improved! Date: Jun 12, 2012 12:21am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: so true...

t"They had the good sense to break up at the height of their creativity," Lewis says. "It wasn't planned, but it was the best move ever. The result is we never had to endure the embarrassment of The Beatles going disco or getting a middle-age paunch"They left seven years of brilliantly recorded music and a perfect corpse that kept the mystique and beauty of The Beatles intact." http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/story/2012-06-10/beatles-50th-anniversary/55506324/1

This post was modified by RBNW....new and improved! on 2012-06-12 07:21:01

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jun 12, 2012 1:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: so true... maybe for some

So true for the Beatles, I guess. (True, anyway, in the sense that it came to pass that way, so it's hard to imagine anything else, and painful to imagine disco-paunch Beatles.)

Fortunately that's not what happened to the GD, or I guess if it's "seven years," that would mean ... when? OK, let's do a comparison.

For the Beatles, I guess the best date would be to count from Ringo joining in August '62 and then go until April '70, when McCartney left. (I'm cheating and looking this up, so feel free to correct my Wikipedia-fed dates.) That ways the "seven years" is really four months shy of eight years.

The equivalent for the GD, counting from Phil's first gig with them (6/18/65) would take us to Feb 73. Counting from the name change would take us to Aug 73.

I think the only person who might be happy with that would be WT :-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Jun 12, 2012 5:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: so true... maybe for some

My opinion - the first few years were just formative experimentation, finding their sound and style... so 1968 is the real flowering of the GD. I'd also be more generous with the time period, say 10 years - from 1968 to 1977, as an equivalent to the Beatles' 8 years. I'd be perfectly happy if they stopped about then... what followed after that was just more exposition, variations on the theme if you will, with the inclusion of one smash hit and some top-grossing touring years.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: RBNW....new and improved! Date: Jun 12, 2012 1:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: so true... maybe for some

I guess in reference to GD, I think it would've been in their best to quit at least 10 minutes before performing Baba O'reilly or maybe even sooner!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jun 12, 2012 2:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: so true... maybe for some

LOL! That's a reasonable benchmark.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Jun 12, 2012 4:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: so true... maybe for some

Ha! I actually think that was a reasonably good cover and Vince tune.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dudley Dead Date: Jun 12, 2012 8:44am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: so true...

For their legacy, they were lucky . But there were cracks behind the facade since 68 . Anyone who has seen the "Get Back" footage, can see a band that is not happy with itself . Abbey Road, as wonderful as an album as it is, is a great cover up for the fact that there are problems . John Lennon, gives up one great full song, and that is a sort of riff off of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". Paul gives us, the wonderful "You Never Give Me your Money", but the album is mostly carried by 2 of George's best songs, and the brilliant collage, put together by Paul, from scraps of songs , that fills out side 2 . The "Let it Be" album , is a save job by Phil Spector, of the best from the "Get Back" sessions .“He was given the shittiest load of badly-recorded shit with a lousy feeling to it ever, and he made something of it.” - John . Of course, having one of Paul's best songs on it helped . Of course the worst Beatles record is so beyond what most artists can come up with in their whole life ! But on a whole they did quit at the right time .
Also the melt down from the 60's through the mid 70's , where most of the greats seem to have lost that "greatness" ("Exile on Main St."> "Goat's Head Soup"; "Quadrophenia">"Who by Numbers" etc.), or died , escaped them, except in their solo records , where you see the same pattern ("Imagine">"Sometime In NY City") with the exception of Paul, who actually got better (for a short time) in the mid 70's ("Band on the Run", "Venus and Mars").
From just a song writing, album oriented point of view, the Dead, by most people's (non Deadhead) perspective jumped the shark with "Wake of The Flood" . Yes I like the post Europe albums, but I think we are biased by the great live versions of the individual songs . I think as a live Band, their peak continued , to some extent till at least 77 . And I think they had more to offer than most of their 60's fellows, for a lot longer that most .